[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Jayanth. S. M vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
CRL.P No. 6390 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6390 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. JAYANTH. S. M.
S/O MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
OCC: EMPLOYEE IN PRIVATE FIRM
R/O BRUNDAVANA,
2ND STAGE MAIN ROAD,
MALLESHWARA EXTENSION,
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
2. GIRIJAMMA S.L
W/O MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
Digitally OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
signed by
SANJEEVINI J R/O BRUNDAVANA
KARISHETTY
2ND STAGE MAIN ROAD,
Location:
High Court of MALLESHWARA EXTENSION,
Karnataka
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
3. BHAGYALAKSHMI S.M,
W/O LOKESHBABU,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
OCC: ENGINEER
R/O BRUNDAVANA
2ND STAGE MAIN ROAD
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
CRL.P No. 6390 of 2023
HC-KAR
MALLESHWARA EXTENSION
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UMESH P.B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HANDANAKERE POLICE STATION,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI CIRCLE,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 119.
(REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001)
2. SMT. PALLAVI D.M,
W/O JAYANTH
D/O MAJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/AT DAGGENAHALLI
KAMALAPURA POST,
HANDANAKERE POST,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 119.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. H.S. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2137/2022
PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMAKUR DISTRICT (CHARGE
SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 498A, 504, 506 R/W
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
CRL.P No. 6390 of 2023
HC-KAR
34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 AND 6(1)(b) OF D.P ACT IN
CR.NO.60/2022 OF HANDANAKERE P.S.,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI CIRCLE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before the Court calling in question
proceedings in C.C.No.2137/2022 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short)
and Sections 3, 4 and 6(1)(b) of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.
2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Umesh P.B.,
appearing for the petitioners, learned HCGP Shri K.
Nageshwarappa, appearing for respondent No.1., and learned
counsel Shri H.S. Shankar appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The
second respondent is the complainant. The complainant is the
wife of the 1st petitioner - accused No.1. Accused No.1 and the
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
complainant get married on 30.01.2020. Two years thereafter,
it transpires that the relationship between the husband and the
wife flounders. On floundering of the relationship, proceedings
are instituted by the husband against the wife, or wife against
the husband. The wife then registers a complaint on
08.06.2022 which becomes a crime in Crime No. 60/2022
registered for the aforementioned offences. The registration of
the crime leads to investigation. Investigation leads to filing of
the charge-sheet against all the accused. After filing of the
charge-sheet, the petitioners are before this Court calling in
question the proceedings in C.C.No.2137/2022. This Court
protected further trial against accused Nos. 2 and 3 while
permitted the trial to go on against the husband - accused
No.1.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that on a perusal of the complaint or the summary of
the charge sheet, none of the allegations that are levelled
against these petitioners would bring out the ingredients that
are necessary to proceed for further trial. The learned counsel
would submit that the sister-in-law and the mother-in-law are
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
drawn into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. He
would seek quashment of the proceedings including a
contention that the husband also does not have any allegation
against him that can become a crime for offence punishable
under Section 498A of the IPC.
5. The learned counsel Shri H. S. Shankar appearing
for respondent No.2 would vehemently refute the submission,
in contending that the allegations in the complaint and the
charge sheet clearly bring out the ingredients of the offences
alleged against all the petitioners. Therefore, it is a matter of
trial for the petitioners to come out clean.
6. The Learned HCGP would also toe the lines of the
learned counsel appearing for the complainant in seeking
dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and I have
perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record.
The first petitioner and the respondent get married in 2020 and
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
the relationship is said to have floundered immediately. The
several proceedings including annulment of marriage or seeking
maintenance are galore between the two. The subject issue
concerns the registration of the crime. A complaint comes to be
registered on 08.06.2022 by respondent No.2 - wife against the
present petitioners. The complaint reads as follows:
" ೆ:
ೕ ಸ ಇ ೆ ೆಕ
ಹಂದನ ೆ ೆ ೕ ೕ ಾ ೆ
ಕ ಾಯಕನಹ ಾಲೂ"#
ಇಂದ:
$%ೕಮ' ಪಲ"* ೋಂ ಜಯಂ, 26 ವಷ1
2ೆಗ4ನಹ ಹಂದನ ೆ ೆ 5ೋಬ
ಕ ಾಯಕನಹ ಾಲೂ"ಕು
ತುಮಕೂರು :;ೆ"
8660262078
?ಾ@A,
ತುಮಕೂರು :;ೆ", ಕ ಾಯಕನಹ ಾಲೂ"ಕು, ಹಂದನ ೆ ೆ 5ೋಬ 2ೇ ೆ4ನಹ ಾ%ಮದ
CಾD ಮಂಜು ಾಥರವರ ಮಗಳG $ವHಗ4 IೌK ಮ;ೆ"ೕಶ@ರ ನಗರದ " CಾಸCಾMರುವ
ಜಯಂ,ರವರ ಪ'N 26 ವಷ1 ವಯಸು ಳ ಪಲ"* ಆದ ಾನು ತಮPಲ"
ಾ%Q1D ೊಳG ವRSೇ ೆಂದ ೆ,
ನನN *CಾಹವR T ಾಂಕ:30-1-2020 ರಂದು 'ಪಟೂರು ಾಲೂ"ಕು ೊಣ*ನ ೆ ೆ 5ೋಬ ,
ೊಣ*ನ ೆ ೆ ಆTಚುಂಚನM\ ಸಮುSಾಯ ಭವನದ " $ವHಗ4 IೌK, ಮ;ೆ"ೕಶ@ರಂ
ನಗರದ "ರುವ ಜಯಂ, ^K ಮಂಜು ಾಥ (ವಯಸು 36 ವಷ1) ಇವರ aೊ ೆ *Cಾಹ
ನ2ೆTರುತbSೆ. *Cಾಹದ ಸಮಯದ " ನನN ತಂSೆ ಾdಯು ಸುeಾರು 5 ಲg ಖಚು1 eಾi
ಮದುCೆ eಾi ೊj ರು ಾb ೆ. ನಮPಗಳ *Cಾಹದ ಸಮಯದ " ಕ ಾಯಕನಹ
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
ಾಲೂ"ಕುಹಂದನ ೆ ೆ 5ೋಬ ಾ\ಕIೆ ಾ%ಮದ ಾಗಣk ಕ ಾಯಕನಹ ಾಲೂ"ಕು
ಹಂದನ ೆ ೆ 5ೋಬ 5ೊಸೂರು ಾ%ಮದ ಚಂದ%ಣk ಮದುCೆ ೆ ಮುಂ ತCಾM ನಮP
ಕುಟುಂಬದವ\ ೆ ನನN ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆಯವರನುN ಪ\ಚಯ eಾiD ೊಟು ಮದುCೆ
ಸಮಯದ " eಾತುಕ ೆಯನುN eಾiDರು ಾb ೆ. ಮದುCೆ ಸಮಯದ " ನನN ಗಂಡ ಜಯಂ,
^K ಮಂಜು ಾಥ ನನN eಾವ ಮಂಜು ಾಥ ^K ಮುmಯಪn (ವಯಸು 60 ವಷ1) ನನN ಅ ೆb
M\aಾ ೋಂ ಮಂಜು ಾಥ (ವಯಸು 56 ವಷ1) ಇವರುಗಳG ೇ ದಂ ೆ ವ ೋಪpಾರCಾM
3 ಲg ನಗದು ಹಣ ವರm ೆ 32 ಾ%ಂ ಬಂ ಾರದ ೈ pೈನು, 22 ಾ%ಂ ಬಂ ಾರದ
ೊರಳpೈನು 9 ಾ%ಂ ತೂಕದ ಉಂಗುರ ವರm ೆ ಬIೆ ೆ 5ಾಗೂ ಇತ ೇ ಖ 1 ಾM 25000/-
ರೂ ಾdಗಳ ನಗದು ಹಣವನುN ೊಟು ನನ ೆ 40 ಾ%ಂ ಬಂ ಾರದ ;ಾಂv pೈನು 40 ಾ%ಂ
ತೂಕದ ಬಂ ಾರದ ಕ\ಮw ಸರ 30 ಾ%ಂ ತೂಕದ ಬಂ ಾರದ ಬxೆ 18 ಾ%ಂ ತೂಕದ
ಬಂ ಾರದ ಓ;ೆ ಜುಮುz, 5 ಾ%ಂ ತೂಕದ z*\ಂv ಅನುN ೊj ರು ಾb ೆ. *Cಾಹದ ನಂತರ
ಾನು ನನN ಗಂಡ $ವHಗ4ದ ಮ ೆಯ " ಸಂ?ಾರ eಾi ೊಂಡು :ೕವನ
?ಾMಸು'bರು ೆbೕCೆ. ನನN ಗಂಡ {ೆಂಗಳ|\ನ " ೆಲಸದ "ದು} Cಾರ ೆ ಒಂದು •ಾ\
$ವHಗ4 ೆ ಬಂದು 5ೋಗು'bದ}ರು ಾನು {ೆಂಗಳ|\ ೆ ಬರು ೆbೕ ೆ ಎಂದ ೆ mೕನು mಮP
ಅಪnನ ಹ'bರ {ೆಂಗಳ|\ನ " ಮ ೆ eಾಡಲು ಹಣ ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು {ಾ ಎಂದು ನನN ಗಂಡ
ನನ ೆ •ಂDಸು'bದ}ರು. ನನN ಾTm •ಾಗ‚ಲƒ„ ಇಂ:ೕmಯ ಆMದು} ವಕ1 ಾ%... 5ೋಂ
ಎಂದು ೆಲಸ eಾಡಲು $ವHಗ4ದ " ಇದು} ನನN ಸಂ?ಾರದ *ಷಯದ " •ಾM†ಾM
ವರದƒ ೆ ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು {ಾ ಎಂದು ನನ ೆ eಾನDಕCಾM •ಂ?ೆಯನುN ೊj ರು ಾbx ೆ. ನನN
ಾTm mೕನು ನನN ಅಣkm ೆ ಸ\ಸeಾನxಾದ 5ೆಂi'ಯಲ" mೕನು ಕಪRn ಬಣkTಂದ ಇT}†ಾ
ಎಂದು ನನN †ಾCಾಗಲೂ eಾನDಕCಾM •ಂ?ೆ eಾಡು'bದ}ಳG. ನನN ಾTm •ಾಗ‚ ಲƒ„ೕ
5ಾಗೂ ನನN ಅ ೆb M\aಾ ಇವರು ನಮP ಾಲುಗಳನುN ಒತುb ಾವR ಾwಯರು ಎಂದು ನನ ೆ
ತ;ೆಕj 5ೊ2ೆಯು'bದ}ರು ನನN ಗಂಡ {ೆಂಗಳ|\mಂದ ಬಂSಾಗ ನನN ಅ ೆb eಾವ 5ಾಗೂ
ನನN ಾTm ನನN ಗಂಡm ೆ ಇಲ"ಸಲ"ದ ದೂರುಗಳನುN 5ೇ ನನ ೆ 5ೊ2ೆಸು'bದ}ರು. ನನN
ಗಂಡ Cಾರ ೆ ಒಂದು •ಾ\ ಮ ೆ ೆ ಬಂದರು ನನN aೊ ೆ ‡%ೕ'dಂದ ನ2ೆದು
ೊಳG 'bರ ಲ". ನನN ಗಂಡ ನನN ಅ ೆb eಾವ 5ಾಗೂ ಾTm mೕನು mಮP ಅಪnನ ಹ'bರ
?ೈಟು ೆ ೆದು ೊಳ ಲು ಹಣ ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು {ಾ ಎಂದು ನನ ೆ ೆಟ eಾತುಗಳ " {ೈದು
5ೊ2ೆಯು'bದ}ರು. ನಮP ಅಪnನ ಹ'bರ ಹಣದ ಇ;ಾ" ಾನು ಹಣ ತರುವRTಲ" ಎಂದರು ನನ ೆ
ಎಲ"ರೂ ?ೇ\ ತುಂ{ಾ eಾನDಕCಾM •ಂ?ೆ eಾಡು'bದ}ರು. mಮP ಅಪnನ ಮ ೆಯ
ಆDbಯ " •ಾಗ ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು {ಾ ಎಂದು ನನN ಗಂಡ eಾವ 5ೊ2ೆಯು'bದ}ರು. ನನ ೆ mೕನು
pೆ ಾNM;ಾ" ಎಂದು ಊಟ 'ಂiಯನುN ೊಡು'bರ ಲ". ನನN ಗಂಡm ೆ ನಮ ೆ ಮಗು
eಾi ೊxೆ| ೕಣ ಎಂದು 5ೇ ದ ೆ ನನN ಗಂಡ ನನ ೆ ಮಗು {ೇಡ ಎಂದು ಮದುCೆ†ಾದ
Hದಲ ಾ'%dಂSಾಲೂ m ೋಧ ಬಳಸು'bದ}ರು. ನನN ಅ ೆb eಾವ 5ಾಗೂ ಾTm mನ ೆ
ಮಕ xಾಗುವRT;ಾ" mನN ಬಂಡCಾಳ ನಮ ೆ ೊತುb ಎಂದು ನನ ೆ eಾನDಕCಾM •ಂ?ೆ
eಾiರು ಾb ೆ. ನನN ಾTm 5ಾಗೂ ಅ ೆb mೕನು ಹ ಯವಳG ಎಂದು ನನ ೆ eಾನDಕCಾM
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
•ಂ?ೆ eಾiರು ಾb ೆ. ನನN ಾTm †ಾCಾಗಲೂ ನನN ೕK zತುb ೊಳG 'bದ}ಳG ನನN
ತಂSೆ ಾdಯ ಹ'bರ eಾತ ಾಡಲು ^ಡು'bರ ಲ". ನನN ಗಂಡ eಾವ ಅ ೆb 5ಾಗೂ ಾTm
mಮP ಅಪnನ ಮ ೆdಂದ ಕiŠ ಬಂ ಾರ ತಂTT}ೕ†ಾ ಇನೂ aಾDb ಬಂ ಾರ 5ಾಗೂ
ಹಣವನುN ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು {ಾ ಇ "ದ} ೆ mನNನುN ?ಾdಸು ೆbೕCೆ ಎಂದು ಾ%ಣ {ೆದ\ ೆಯನುN
5ಾzರು ಾb ೆ. ನನN ಅಪn $ವHಗ4 ೆ ಬಂದು ನಮP ಊ\ನ " ಹಬ‹ ಇSೆ mೕವR ಎ;ಾ"ರು
ಹಬ‹ ೆ ಬmN ಎಂದು ಕ ೆದು ನನNನುN ಹಬ‹ ೆ ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂTದ}ರು. ನನN ಗಂಡ ನಮP
ಅಪnನ ಮ ೆ ೆ ಹಬ‹ ೆ ಬಂದು ನನN aೊ ೆ ಜಗಳ 5ಾi ನನNನುN 5ೊ2ೆದರು ನನN ತಂSೆ
ನನNನುN ^iD ೊಳ ಲು ಬಂTದ} ೆ ನನN ತಂSೆ ೆ ೆಟ eಾತುಗಳ " {ೈದು 5ೋದರು. ನನN
ತಂSೆ ನನN ೆಲವR Tನಗಳ ಾಲ ತವರು ಮ ೆಯ " ಇಟು ೊಂiದ}ರು. ಸ@ಲn Tನದ ನಂತರ
ನನN ಗಂಡ ನನN ತಂSೆಯ ಮ ೆ ೆ ಬಂದು mಮP ಮಗಳನುN $ವHಗ4 ೆ ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು
5ೊಗ{ೇ ೆಂದ ೆ ನಮ ೆ ?ೈŒ ೆ ೆದು ೊಳ ಲು ಹಣ ೊi ಎಂದು ೇ ದರು. ಅದ ೆ ನನN
ತಂSೆ ನಮP ಬ ಹಣ ಇ;ಾ" ದಯ*ಟು mೕವR ಹಣ ಾ M ನನN ಮಗ ೆ •ಂ?ೆ eಾಡ{ೇi
ನನN ಮಗಳನುN ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು 5ೋM ಒxೆಯ \ೕ'ಯ " ಸಂ?ಾರ eಾi ೊಂಡು ಇ\ೕ
ಎಂದು ಬುT} 5ೇ ದರು ಆದರೂ ನನN ಗಂಡ ನನN ತಂSೆಯ eಾ' ೆ †ಾವRSೇ {ೆ;ೆ ೊಡSೆ
ನನNನುN ತವರು ಮ ೆಯ "•ೕ ^ಟು 5ೋದರು. $ವHಗ4 ೆ 5ೋದವರು ಾನು ೕನು
eಾiದರೂ ನನN ಗಂಡ eಾತ ಾಡು'bರ ಲ" ನನN ಗಂಡ ೆಲವR 'ಂಗxಾದರೂ ನನN ತವರು
ಮ ೆ ೆ ಬರ ಲ". ಆದ}\ಂದ ನನN ತಂSೆ ಾd ಮದುCೆ eಾತುಕ ೆಯ " •ಾಗವ•Dದ}
ಕ ಾಯಕನಹ ಾಲೂ"ಕು ಾ\ೕಕIೆ ಾ%ಮದ ಾಗಣk {ೆನಕನಕIೆ ಯುವ ಾಜು
ಇವರುಗಳನುN T ಾಂಕ:11-4-2022 ರಂದು ಮŽಾ‚ಹN 1-30 ‡ ಎಂ ೆ $ವHಗ4 IೌK
ಮ;ೆ"ಶ@ರ ನಗರದ " ಇರುವ ನನN ಗಂಡ 5ಾಗು ಅವರ ಮ ೆಯವರ aೊ ೆ eಾ ಾ ಾi
ನನNನುN ^ಟು ಬರಲು ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು 5ೋMದ}ರು. ಆದ ೆ ನನN ಗಂಡ ಅತb eಾವ 5ಾಗೂ
ಾTm mಮP ಮಗಳನುN ಾವR ?ೇ\ಸುವRT;ಾ" mಮP ಮಗಳನುN ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು 5ೋM
ಎಂದು ಗ;ಾIೆ eಾiದರು. ನನN eಾವ ಮಂಜು ಾಥ 5ಾಗೂ ಅ ೆb M\aಾ ನಮP ಮಗm ೆ
{ೇರ ಮದುCೆ eಾಡು ೆbೕCೆ ನಮ ೆ 5ೆಣುk ೊಡುವವರು {ೇ ಾದಷು ಜನ\Sಾ} ೆ mಮP
ಮಗಳನುN ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು 5ೋM ಎಂದರು. ನನN ಗಂಡ mಮP ಮಗಳನುN ಇ "•ೕ ^ಟು
5ೋದ ೆ ೊ • 5ಾಕು ೆbೕ ೆ ಎಂದು ಾ%ಣ {ೆದ\ ೆ 5ಾzರು ಾb ೆ. ನನN ಾTm •ಾಗ‚ ಲƒ„ೕ
ನನN ೕK 5ಾಗೂ ನನN ಾdಯ ೕನನುN zತುb ೊಂಡು ಇದು ನನN ಮ ೆ ಕ ೆ mೕನು
ಮ ೆ ^ಟು 5ೋಗು ಇಷು Tನ †ಾರ aೊ ೆ ಇದು} ಬಂTT}†ಾ ಎಂದು ೆಟ eಾತುಗಳ "
{ೈದು 5ೊ2ೆTರು ಾbx ೆ. ನನN ಗಂಡ 5ಾಗೂ eಾವ ನನN ತಂSೆಯನುN mನN ಮಗಳನುN
ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು 5ೋಗು' ಎಂದು 5ೊ2ೆದರು. ನನN ಅ ೆb 5ಾಗೂ ಾTm ನನN ಾdಯನುN ೈ
•iದು ಎxೆSಾi 5ೊ2ೆದರು. ನನN ಗಂಡ eಾವ ಅ ೆb 5ಾಗೂ ನನN ಾTm ನನN ತಂSೆ
ಾd 5ಾಗೂ ನನNನುN ಮ ೆdಂದ ಅpೆ ನೂzದರು.
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
ನನN ತಂSೆ ಮದುCೆ eಾiDದ ಕ ಾಯಕನಹ ಾಲೂ"ಕು ಾ\ಕIೆ ಾ%ಮದ ಾಗಣk
{ೆನಕನಕIೆ ಯುವ ಾಜು 5ೊಸೂರು ಾ%ಮದ pೆಂದ%ಣk ಇವರುಗಳನುN ?ೇ\D ಾ‚ಯ
ಪಂpಾd' eಾi ಸಂ?ಾರ ಸ\ಪiಸಲು ?ಾಕಷು ಪ%ಯತN eಾiರು ಾb ೆ. ಆದ ೆ ನನN
ಗಂಡ ಅ ೆb eಾವ ಾ‚ಯ ಪಂpಾd'ಗೂ ಬರSೆ mೕವR ಏನು {ೇ ಾದರೂ eಾi ೊ
ಾವR ಬರುವRTಲ" ಎಂTರು ಾb ೆ.
ಅದ}\ಂದ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮP " ೇ ೊಳG ವRSೇ ೆಂದ ೆ ನನ ೆ ವರದƒಣ zರುಕುಳ mೕi
eಾನDಕ 5ಾಗೂ Sೈ•ಕ •ಂ?ೆ ೊಟು ನನN :ೕವನ 5ಾಳG eಾiರುವ ನನN ಗಂಡ
ಜಯಂ,, ಅ ೆb M\aಾ, eಾವ ಮಂಜು ಾಥ 5ಾಗೂ ಾTm •ಾಗ‚ƒ„ೕ (‡%ೕ') ಇವರುಗಳ
Šೕ;ೆ ಾನೂನು ಕ%ಮ ಜರುMD ಾ‚ಯ SೊರzD ೊಡ{ೇ ಾM ಾ%ಥ1 ೆ. ಘಟ ೆಯ
*pಾರವನುN ನಮP ಸಂಬಂ"ಕ\ ೆ 5ಾಗೂ ನಮP ೕಷಕ\ ೆ ' D 5ಾಗೂ ಈ *pಾರದ "
ಾ‚ಯ ಪಂpಾd' eಾi ಬ ೆಹ\D ೊxೆ| ೕಣ ಎಂದು ' Dದ}\ಂದ ಸುಮPmSೆ}ೕವR ಆದ ೆ
ಅವರುಗಳG ಾ‚ಯ ಪಂpಾd' ೆ {ಾರSೆ ಇದ} ಪ%ಯುಕb ಈ Tನ ಾ ೆ ೆ ತಡCಾM ಬಂದು
ಸದ\ಯವರ Šೕ;ೆ ದೂರು mೕiರು ೆbೕ ೆ."
The police conduct investigation and file a charge-sheet
against these petitioners. The summary of the charge sheet as
obtaining in column number 17 reads as follows:
"17. PÉÃDನ ಸಂƒಪb ?ಾ ಾಂಶ
PÀ®A: 323.498(J).504.506 gÉ/« 34 L¦¹ eÉÆvÉUÉ PÀ®A 3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4,
6(1)(©)r, ¦ DPïÖ,
ಕ ಾಯಕನಹ ,, ಾಲೂಕು ಹಂದನ ೆ ೆ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹT} ೆ ?ೇ\ದ ದು ೆ4ನಹ ,
ಾ%ಮದ CಾD ?ಾƒ 01 ರವರ ಮದುCೆಯು ಈ Sೋ•ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪತ%ದ ಅಂಕಣ 12 ರ ".,
ಕಂಡ ಆ ೋ‡ 01 ರವರ aೊ ೆಯ ,, •ಂದೂ ಸಂಪ%Sಾಯದಂ ೆ ಗುರು •\ಯ
ಸಮುPಖದ°è 'ಪಟೂರು ಾಲೂ"ಕು ೋಣ*ನ ೆ ೆ ಾ%ಮದ $%ೕ ಆT ಚುಂಚನM\
ಸಮುSಾಯ ಭವನದ " T ಾಂಕ 29/01/2020 ಮತುb T ಾಂಕ 30/01/2020 ರಂದು
ನ2ೆTರು ೆb ಮದುCೆ†ಾದ ನಂತರ ಆ ೋ‡ 01 ರವರು ?ಾƒ 01 ರವರ aೊ ೆಯ ., ಮಗು
{ೇಡCೆಂದು ಮದುCೆ†ಾದ TನTಂದಲೂ m ೋ- ಬಳDರು ಾbರಂತ, ?ಾƒ 01 ರವರು
ಆ ೋ‡ 02.03.04 ರವರ aೊ ೆಯ ಸಂ?ಾರ eಾಡು'bSಾ}ಗ, ಆ ೋ‡ 02.03.04
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
ರವರುಗಳG mೕನು mಮP ಅಪnನ ಮ ೆ ೆ 5ೋM ಾವR ?ೈŒ ೆ ೆದು ೊಳ ಲು 5ೆ •ನ
ವರದƒ ೆ†ಾM ಹಣ ಮತುb ಆDbಯ ,, {ಾಗ ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು {ಾ ಅಂತ 5ಾಗೂ ಆ ೋ‡
04 ರವರು ?ಾƒ 01 ರವ\ ೆ ನಮP ಅಣkm ೆ mೕನು ಸ\†ಾದ 5ೆಂಡ' ಅಲ"., ಕಪn ೆ
ಇT%†ಾಂತ ಊಟ ೊಡSೆ eಾನDಕCಾM ಮತುb Sೈ•ಕCಾM •ಂ?ೆ ೊj ರು ಾb ೆಂತ,
ಆ ೋ‡ 02 ಮತುb 04 ರವರು ?ಾƒ 01 ರವ\ ೆ ಾಲುಗಳನುN ಒತುbವಂ ೆ ತ;ೆಕj
5ೊ2ೆದು mಮ ೆ ಮಕ ಳG ಆಗುವRTಲ", mಮPಪnನ ಮ ೆdಂದ aಾDb ಬಂ ಾರ
ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು {ಾ ಅಂತ ಾ%ಣ {ೆದ\ ೆ 5ಾz eಾನDಕCಾM ಮತುb Sೈ•ಕCಾM •ಂ?ೆ
mೕiರು ಾbರಂತ
?ಾƒ 01 ರವರು ತವರು ಮ ೆ ೆ ದು ೋನಹ ೆ ಹಬ‹ ೆ ಂದು ಬಂSಾಗ ಆ ೋ‡ 01 ರವರು
ದು ೋನಹ ೆ ಬಂದು ?ಾƒ 01 ರವರ aೊ ೆಯ ", ಜಗಳCಾi ೈಗ ಂದ 5ೊ2ೆದ ೆಂತ
?ಾƒ 02 ರವರು ^iಸಲು 5ೋSಾಗ ಆ ೋ‡ 01 ರವರು ?ಾƒ 02 ರವ\ ೆ ೆಟ ೆಟ
eಾತುಗ ಂದ {ೈದು, ?ಾƒ 01 ರವರನುN ಮ ೆ ೆ ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು 5ೋಗ{ೇ ಾದ ೆ ?ೈŒ
ೆ ೆದು ೊಳ ಲು ವರದƒ ೆ ಹಣ ೊi ಅಂತ •ಂ?ೆ mೕiರು ಾbರಂತ
T ಾಂಕ 11/04/2022 ರಂದು ಮSಾ‚ನ 01-30 ಗಂIೆಯ " ?ಾƒ 02 ರವರು ?ಾƒ
01.03.04.06 ರವರುಗಳನುN ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು $ವHಗ4, IೌK ನ ಮ;ೆ"ೕಶ@ರ ನಗರ ೆ
5ೋSಾಗ ಆ ೋ‡ಗxೆಲ"ರು ?ೇ\ ೊಂಡು ?ಾƒ 02 ರವ\ ೆ, ?ಾƒ 01 ರವರನುN ಮ ೆ ೆ
?ೇ\ಸುವRTಲ", ಆ ೋ‡ 01 ರವ\ ೆ {ೇ ೆ 5ೆಣುk ತಂದು ಮದುCೆ eಾಡು ೆbೕ, ಎಷು 5ೆಣುk,
{ೇ ಾದರೂ DಗುತbCೆ. ?ಾƒ 01 ರವರನುN E°èAiÉÄÃ ^ಟ ೆ ೊ • 5ಾಕು ೆbೕCೆಂತ ಾ%ಣ
{ೆದ\ ೆ 5ಾzದ ೆಂತ, ಆ ೋ‡ 04 ರವರು ?ಾƒ 01 ಮತುb 03 ರವರ ೕK zತುb ೊಂಡು
EzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ಮ ೆ ಕ ೆ mೕನು ಮ ೆ ^ಟು 5ೋಗು ಇಷು Tನ †ಾರ aೊ ೆ ಇದು}
ಬಂTT%†ಾಂತ ೆಟ ೆಟ eಾತುಗ ಂದ {ೈದ ೆಂತ, ?ಾƒ 02 gÀªÀjUÉ D ೋ‡ 01 ಮತುb
03 ರವರು ೈಗ ಂದ 5ೊ2ೆTರು ಾb ೆಂvÀ ಆ ೋ‡ 02 ಮತುb 04 ರವರು ?ಾƒ 03 ರವರ
ೈ •iದು J¼ÉzÁr ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ?ಾƒ 01.02.03 ರವರುಗಳನುN ಮ ೆdಂದ ಆpೆ
ನೂzರು ಾb ೆಂತ 5ಾಗೂ *Cಾಹ ಾಲದ " mೕiದ% ªÀqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ಆ ೋ‡-01 ರವರು ?ಾƒ-
01 ರವ\ ೆ Cಾ ಾ mೕiರುವRTಲ"Cೆಂದು ತm--ೆdಂದ ದೃಡಪಡಟ Šೕ ೆ ೆ ಆ ೋ‡ಗಳ
*ರುದು™ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À \ೕ ಾ‚ Sೋ•ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪತ%."
If the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are
juxtaposed, what would unmistakably emerge is, the
allegations against the sister-in-law and the mother-in-law are
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
loosely laid. The ingredients of Sections 498A or 323 or 504 or
506 IPC are completely absent qua the accused Nos.2 and 4
the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law. In that light,
permitting further proceedings against these two, would run
foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM v. STATE OF BIHAR1,
wherein it is held as follows:
".... .... ....
Issue involved
10. Having perused the relevant facts and
contentions made by the appellants and
respondents, in our considered opinion, the
foremost issue which requires determination in the
instant case is whether allegations made against
the appellant in-laws are in the nature of general
omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be
quashed?
11. Before we delve into greater detail on the
nature and content of allegations made, it becomes
pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section
498-AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty
committed upon a woman by her husband and her
in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention.
However, it is equally true, that in recent times,
matrimonial litigation in the country has also
increased significantly and there is a greater
disaffection and friction surrounding the institution
of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted
in an increased tendency to employ provisions such
as Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle
personal scores against the husband and his
relatives.
2022 SCC OnLine SC 162
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh
Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.,
(2018) 10 SCC 472: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has
observed : (SCC pp. 478-79, para 14)
"14. Section 498-A was inserted in the
statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty
at the hands of husband or his relatives against a
wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to
result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned
in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 46
of 1983. The expression "cruelty" in Section 498-A
covers conduct which may drive the woman to
commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or
physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view
to coerce her to meet unlawful demand.
[Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of
serious concern that large number of cases continue
to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment
of married women. We have already referred to
some of the statistics from the Crime Records
Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that
most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the
moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints
are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the
complaint, implications and consequences are not
visualised. At times such complaints lead to uncalled
for harassment not only to the accused but also to
the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the
chances of settlement."
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this
Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: (2014) 3 SCC
(Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4)
"4. There is a phenomenal increase in
matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution
of marriage is greatly revered in this country.
Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed
object to combat the menace of harassment to a
woman at the hands of her husband and his
relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a
cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a
dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that
are used as weapons rather than shield by
disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
get the husband and his relatives arrested under this
provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden
grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands,
their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."
14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7
SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been
observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)
"32. It is a matter of common experience
that most of these complaints under Section 498-
AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial
issues without proper deliberations. We come across
a large number of such complaints which are not
even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At
the same time, rapid increase in the number of
genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter
of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and obligation to
ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined
or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated
versions of small incidents should not be reflected in
the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints
are filed either on their advice or with their
concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who
belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble
traditions and should treat every complaint under
Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must
make serious endeavour to help the parties in
arriving at an amicable resolution of that human
problem. They must discharge their duties to the
best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre,
peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact.
The members of the Bar should also ensure that one
complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences are not
properly visualised by the complainant that such
complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment,
agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his
close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find
out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the
innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
majority of these complaints. The tendency of
implicating the husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after
the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to
ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.
The allegations of harassment of husband's close
relations who had been living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complaint are
required to be scrutinised with great care and
circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and
protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony
and bitterness in the relationship amongst the
parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge
that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband
or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even
for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an
amicable settlement altogether. The process of
suffering is extremely long and painful."
15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta
Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741: (2013) 1
SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed
: (SCC p. 749, para 21)
"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take
note of an apt observation of this Court recorded
in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733]
wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had
held that the High Court should have quashed the
complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute
wherein all family members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set
aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which
we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12)
'12. ... There has been an outburst of matrimonial
dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony,
the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple
to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
involved with the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other reasons which need
not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial
litigation so that the parties may ponder over their
defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law
where it takes years and years to conclude and in that
process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their
cases in different courts.'
The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the
courts would not encourage such disputes."
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of
Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018)
14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also
observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6)
"6. ... The courts should be careful in
proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes
pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry
deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be
roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless
specific instances of their involvement in the crime
are made out."
17. The abovementioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this Court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes, without analysing the long-term
ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well
as the accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result
in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
Court by way of its judgments has warned the
courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-
laws of the husband when no prima facie case is
made out against them.
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a
perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is
revealed that general allegations are levelled against the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
appellants. The complainant alleged that "all accused
harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating
her pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct
allegations have been made against either of the
appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been
attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general
allegations made against them. This simply leads to a
situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by
each accused in furtherance of the offence. The
allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can
at best be said to have been made out on account of
small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since
he has not appealed against the order of the High Court,
we have not examined the veracity of allegations made
against him. However, as far as the appellants are
concerned, the allegations made against them being
general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.
19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of
harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a
previous FIR Respondent 1 i.e. the State of Bihar,
contends that the present FIR pertained to offences
committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given
by the husband Md. Ikram before the learned Principal
Judge, Purnea, to not harass the respondent wife herein
for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the
assurances, all accused continued their demands and
harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts
constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in
question herein dated 1-4-2019, is distinct and
independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an
earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017.
20. Here it must be borne in mind that
although the two FIRs may constitute two
independent instances, based on separate
transactions, the present complaint fails to
establish specific allegations against the in-laws of
the respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the
absence of clear allegations against the appellant
in-laws would simply result in an abuse of the
process of law.
21. Therefore, upon consideration of the
relevant circumstances and in the absence of any
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it
would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go
through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and
omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation
where the relatives of the complainant's husband
are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted
by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal
trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts
severe scars upon the accused, and such an
exercise must, therefore, be discouraged."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Insofar as the husband is concerned, this Court had
not protected the trial against the husband, finding that the
allegations against the husband would undoubtedly point at the
ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. In
that light, the trial against the husband shall continue. It is
open to the husband / accused No.1 to avail of such remedy, as
is available in law.
10. The learned counsel Shri H. S. Shankar submits
that notwithstanding the fact that there was no interim order
against the husband / accused No.1, the concerned Court has
not proceeded against the Accused No.1 at all. Therefore, the
concerned Court shall now forthwith take steps to regulate its
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
procedure to conclude these proceedings, as expeditiously as
possible.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed-in-part.
(ii) The criminal petition insofar as the petitioner No.1 -
husband is concerned, stands dismissed. The
proceedings against petitioner No.1 - husband in
C.C. No.2137/2022 pending before the Senior Civil
Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class
Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumkuru District shall
continue.
(iii) The criminal petition in so far as the other
petitioners - accused Nos.2 and 4 is concerned,
stands allowed. The proceedings in in C.C.
No.2137/2022 pending before the Senior Civil Judge
and Judicial Magistrate First Class
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8067
HC-KAR
Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumkuru District stands
quashed qua petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
KS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
